Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jibacoa who wrote (2782)	2/4/2001 11:18:50 AM
From: Oak Tree	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Interesting article. I'm not sure if all modern series are quite that good. 7% sounds a little low (with most institutions reporting about 15%, and recognizing that patients that come back with one restenosis come back for more than one procedure). There results are also, perhaps a bit too good considering the heterogeneity, so many different types of stents and potential differences in "stent oversizing" and so forth. The angioplasty alone restenosis however is in the correct ball park -- e.g. 30%. Radiation can get PTCA to about 7% also. That would leave out the stent completely. So I remain pro-radiation. Either way, did you see the New England J. Med last week -- two cardiovascular restenosis-radiation papers back to back. They also included some reviewers comments and some WRIST data -- all the studies are positive, some of the reviewers remain sceptical. One thing is for sure -- getting coronary heart disease can be lethal.